American corporations are guilty for millions of deaths in US alone, for negligence, omission and even for taking intended illegal risks, but because they are corporations their owners and CEOs don't even answer to criminal justice for most of that, and in the rare occasions they do they walk free. No, my friend, there is no sensible difference, regardless of how much you want to see it this way.
"Not being a dick" depends highly on the opinion and the sensibilities of the people affected. Trying to not be a dick to everyone regardless of their arbitrary sensibilities is called being politically correct, and it is a great disease of our time.
Jumping to conclusions is only a problem if people don't jump to the conclusion you prefer.
Jumping to conclusions is almost always a problem, and the results are similarly more often than not disastrous, mostly like anything you do must be.
Politeness doesn't translate well, and just shows weakness others. I used to be more polite online. I grew out of it. People (you) apparently mistake directness for fanaticism.
I couldn't care less about politeness, but it is not from your directness that fanaticism can be inferred, but from your singlemindeness and disregard for logic.
Apple certainly do't represent anywhere close 20% of Us economy but after some point this is irrelevant. Apple can get away with whatever it does in US, at least as much as Samsung can in Korea.
Vast experience coupled with independent thinking and not agreeing with every nut job with an incorrect opinion on the Internet is a problem?
Wouldn't be if that was indeed the case. Ignorance coupled with a tendency of jumping to conclusions and a delusional self-image of virtue is, on the other hand.
I was on a jury for DUI. The jury was hung. There was one woman whose son-in-law is a cop, and she believes all cops are liars who want to fuck her baby girl
Very similar to you, but I reckon you must be able to hide it better than her, at least when you are not posting on Slashdot.:)
Jurors are instructed to follow the LAW, my friend. It may be a weird concept for you, but no matter how much you dislike someone or how much you think what he did is wrong, if it is not illegal it is not a crime.
Regarding my position, I don't not have a clue if Zimmerman is guilty or innocent here, that is, if he had justification to fire, but I am certainly sure there was reasonable doubt, and so were the jury. That is enough by LAW to acquit anybody, or at least should be. You, on the other, seem to want him to be guilty by pure spite, enough to convict him regardless of his doing anything illegal or not.
Haughty people, full of prejudices and self-righteousness like you are what is wrong with this world, my friend.
If you believe his story and still find him guilty you are just ignoring the law as the jury members are instructed not to do. So basically you would be an irresponsible jury member, who judges based on his own prejudices instead of based on the law, ignoring your legal obligations.
Pursuing someone is no legal justification for this person to physically attack you. If he attacks you, firing at him is perfectly legal, though. Even if the the defendant thought that the situation was a possible outcome of his pursuit it is still not illegal doing what he did.
USSR did adapt a form o Communism about as much as US did of Capitalism. Both are equally far from the ideals of those ideologies. There is no Communism that is not totalitarian in the real world. It is simply impossible to implement as it goes against human nature. "Democratic Communism" is as reasonable an idea as "dry water".
By "saving" you certainly mean endangering them far more than the threat they were facing. Sorry man, but you don't make sense at all. EVERYTHING is possible but justice is not based on certainties, because certainties simply do not exist. Justice is based on "reasonable" likelihood and "reasonable" doubt. Your theories are as reasonable as one about an alien invader firing the warning shots and then teleporting away, mindwiping everybody and making them believe it was her.
Sorry, but the idea that her children where in danger enough for her to go back to that room with a gun instead of just getting away, and then fire warning shoots endangering the lives of the same children is so absurd she didn't even try to sell it in court. That is a fact.
It was not reasonable as her husband had absolutely no History of hitting her OR her children. And less reasonable yet when you realize she fired random shots in a room in the presence of her children, thus endangering them far more than her husband possibly could. No matter how you try ot spin it, she didn't come back to save her children.
But yes, 20 years is excessive, but that is a problem with US criminal justice as a whole. Penalties for relatively small crimes are arbitrarily large in order to allow prosecutors to force people into deals and put people into jail (many times innocent people) with minimum effort.
Please don't push into us your own absurd definitions to terms that already have perfectly known definitions. Fascism has NOTHING to do with corporations. Fascism is a Totalitarian doctrine were the government fully controls the economy and the resources and at most allows companies to operate under their supervision.
Cronyism on the other hand is what you are trying to define, and it is indeed a subset of Capitalism.
Not even then, my friend, because someone in the tribe was always the leader, another the shaman and they and a few others had privileges, and this way of life falls apart pretty badly as the tribe size increases.
What YOU call Communism, never existed and never will in the same way Laissez Faire Capitalism never existed and never will. Both exist only on the paper
Because if you have a gun pointed at someone you are already scaring him. If he still decides to go for you, warning shots won't save you, if you use a gun for that you will end being disarmed and killed. What warning shots can do, on the other hand, is to hurt and maybe kill innocent people, though.
Self defense laws are designed to allow shots to be used only as a last resort. If you feel that the threat is strong enough and justifies shooting your attacker you are allowed to shoot him, otherwise keep your trigger happy fingers well behaved.
And the suspicious individual actually physically attacked him. And he shot the suspicious individual, which is legal in this situation. You may think that it was not what happened, but you cannot prove it, and in doubt he goes free. In the woman case she obviously did a crime and that could be easily proven. They are not even slightly the same.
Slashdot Mirror
I listened to the available facts, and evaluated them.
I am sure that it is what you think you are doing.
American corporations are guilty for millions of deaths in US alone, for negligence, omission and even for taking intended illegal risks, but because they are corporations their owners and CEOs don't even answer to criminal justice for most of that, and in the rare occasions they do they walk free. No, my friend, there is no sensible difference, regardless of how much you want to see it this way.
"Not being a dick" depends highly on the opinion and the sensibilities of the people affected. Trying to not be a dick to everyone regardless of their arbitrary sensibilities is called being politically correct, and it is a great disease of our time.
Jumping to conclusions is only a problem if people don't jump to the conclusion you prefer.
Jumping to conclusions is almost always a problem, and the results are similarly more often than not disastrous, mostly like anything you do must be.
Politeness doesn't translate well, and just shows weakness others. I used to be more polite online. I grew out of it. People (you) apparently mistake directness for fanaticism.
I couldn't care less about politeness, but it is not from your directness that fanaticism can be inferred, but from your singlemindeness and disregard for logic.
Nobody is suggesting that they, all of a sudden, just stop buying components and wait for their plants to become operational.
The real blind man is the one that refuses to see...
You, on the other hand, should make a reality check and realize that the corporations own US, and Apple has a big share.
Apple certainly do't represent anywhere close 20% of Us economy but after some point this is irrelevant. Apple can get away with whatever it does in US, at least as much as Samsung can in Korea.
Nah, Palm One, HP, MS and many others before them.
To the same place Apple did. ;)
In the long term maybe not. In the short term it is certainly worse, though, and everybody only thinks about the next Quarter these days...
Seems like Apple in US...
Vast experience coupled with independent thinking and not agreeing with every nut job with an incorrect opinion on the Internet is a problem?
Wouldn't be if that was indeed the case. Ignorance coupled with a tendency of jumping to conclusions and a delusional self-image of virtue is, on the other hand.
I was on a jury for DUI. The jury was hung. There was one woman whose son-in-law is a cop, and she believes all cops are liars who want to fuck her baby girl
Very similar to you, but I reckon you must be able to hide it better than her, at least when you are not posting on Slashdot. :)
Jurors are instructed to follow the LAW, my friend. It may be a weird concept for you, but no matter how much you dislike someone or how much you think what he did is wrong, if it is not illegal it is not a crime.
Regarding my position, I don't not have a clue if Zimmerman is guilty or innocent here, that is, if he had justification to fire, but I am certainly sure there was reasonable doubt, and so were the jury. That is enough by LAW to acquit anybody, or at least should be. You, on the other, seem to want him to be guilty by pure spite, enough to convict him regardless of his doing anything illegal or not.
Haughty people, full of prejudices and self-righteousness like you are what is wrong with this world, my friend.
If you believe his story and still find him guilty you are just ignoring the law as the jury members are instructed not to do. So basically you would be an irresponsible jury member, who judges based on his own prejudices instead of based on the law, ignoring your legal obligations.
Pursuing someone is no legal justification for this person to physically attack you. If he attacks you, firing at him is perfectly legal, though. Even if the the defendant thought that the situation was a possible outcome of his pursuit it is still not illegal doing what he did.
Fortunately for him, you are not in the jury, and even if you were the jury needs unanimity to condemn to filter prejudices from people like you.
Nope, it is not. Any police officer correctly trained won't ever fire warning shots.
USSR did adapt a form o Communism about as much as US did of Capitalism. Both are equally far from the ideals of those ideologies. There is no Communism that is not totalitarian in the real world. It is simply impossible to implement as it goes against human nature. "Democratic Communism" is as reasonable an idea as "dry water".
By "saving" you certainly mean endangering them far more than the threat they were facing. Sorry man, but you don't make sense at all. EVERYTHING is possible but justice is not based on certainties, because certainties simply do not exist. Justice is based on "reasonable" likelihood and "reasonable" doubt. Your theories are as reasonable as one about an alien invader firing the warning shots and then teleporting away, mindwiping everybody and making them believe it was her.
Sorry, but the idea that her children where in danger enough for her to go back to that room with a gun instead of just getting away, and then fire warning shoots endangering the lives of the same children is so absurd she didn't even try to sell it in court. That is a fact.
It was not reasonable as her husband had absolutely no History of hitting her OR her children. And less reasonable yet when you realize she fired random shots in a room in the presence of her children, thus endangering them far more than her husband possibly could. No matter how you try ot spin it, she didn't come back to save her children.
But yes, 20 years is excessive, but that is a problem with US criminal justice as a whole. Penalties for relatively small crimes are arbitrarily large in order to allow prosecutors to force people into deals and put people into jail (many times innocent people) with minimum effort.
Please don't push into us your own absurd definitions to terms that already have perfectly known definitions. Fascism has NOTHING to do with corporations. Fascism is a Totalitarian doctrine were the government fully controls the economy and the resources and at most allows companies to operate under their supervision.
Cronyism on the other hand is what you are trying to define, and it is indeed a subset of Capitalism.
Not even then, my friend, because someone in the tribe was always the leader, another the shaman and they and a few others had privileges, and this way of life falls apart pretty badly as the tribe size increases.
What YOU call Communism, never existed and never will in the same way Laissez Faire Capitalism never existed and never will. Both exist only on the paper
Because if you have a gun pointed at someone you are already scaring him. If he still decides to go for you, warning shots won't save you, if you use a gun for that you will end being disarmed and killed. What warning shots can do, on the other hand, is to hurt and maybe kill innocent people, though.
Self defense laws are designed to allow shots to be used only as a last resort. If you feel that the threat is strong enough and justifies shooting your attacker you are allowed to shoot him, otherwise keep your trigger happy fingers well behaved.
And the suspicious individual actually physically attacked him. And he shot the suspicious individual, which is legal in this situation. You may think that it was not what happened, but you cannot prove it, and in doubt he goes free. In the woman case she obviously did a crime and that could be easily proven. They are not even slightly the same.